Preschoolers and Advertising: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda on the Effects of Advertising on Preschool Children

Abstract

Preschool children’s (ages three to five) advertising exposure is expected to increase over the coming years, mainly due to their changed media use. This increasing exposure might be problematic as research has shown a correlation with unfavorable outcomes, such as obesogenic eating tendencies. However, research on preschoolers and advertising is not unequivocal, and, to the best of our knowledge, no literature reviews are currently available. Therefore, this article aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the academic literature (N = 92) on advertising and preschool children published between 1980 and 2021 and so propose a future research agenda. The analysis revealed that little attention has been paid to preschool children’s exposure to and impact from embedded advertising formats (e.g., YouTube advertising). The main interest in the included studies was on preschool children’s nutrition, which was reflected in both the constructs studied (e.g., food preferences) and the publication outlets (e.g., Appetite). Further, studies focusing on behavioral outcomes, such as purchase requests, are limited, and therefore little is known about the long-term impact of advertising exposure in preschool children. Finally, most studies do not explicitly disclose a theoretical framework. Future studies should address these issues to catch up with preschool children’s advertising reality.

Preschool children (ages three to five) are considered an important target group for marketers. Although these children do not have their own spending power, they exert a major influence on their parents’ buying behavior and develop preferences that continue into adulthood (Albuquerque et al. 2018). The advertising landscape targeting preschool children has dramatically changed in recent decades as children’s screen time is no longer dominated by linear television viewing. For instance, the most recent media use report by Ofcom (2021) indicates that while 47% of preschool children watch live broadcast TV, almost double the amount (i.e., 92%) make use of video-sharing platforms, such as YouTube and TikTok, to watch videos. This change in media use has been accompanied by a change in advertising techniques. A recent report by Insider Intelligence indicates that while yearly spending on TV advertising has decreased over time, spending on digital advertising is steadily increasing (Cramer-Flood 2021). In addition, the global COVID-19 pandemic has pushed retailers to expand their digital presence and switch to e-commerce, whereby the global digital ad spend will increase even more in the coming years (Graham 2021).

As digital media ads can include a variety of social media advertising formats, such as pre-roll, mid-roll, and post-roll ads (e.g., ads shown prior to, in the middle of, or after a video); sponsored vlogs (e.g., toy unboxing videos); and online banners; it is expected that preschool children’s exposure to these advertising formats will only increase. Further, while watching television is often a shared household activity, watching videos on a tablet or smartphone is more often an individual activity, often happening without parental supervision (Connell, Lauricella, and Wartella 2015). Therefore, preschool children may have little parental guidance when exposed to advertising on these devices.

Compared to traditional advertising formats that clearly separate advertising from media content (e.g., TV commercials), digital advertising is more interactive and integrated into the media content, blurring the lines between media and commercial content. This makes it difficult to detect advertising and critically process it, especially for young children (Hudders et al. 2017; Vanwesenbeeck, Hudders, and Ponnet 2020). In addition, mobile applications, such as YouTube and TikTok, often collect personal information that is transmitted to third-party companies, resulting in more personalized and targeted advertising (Zhao et al. 2020). The heightened relevance of such advertising and children’s unawareness of exposure to such advertising could automatically and subconsciously influence children (Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, and Owen 2010). Further, research with older children has shown that advertising exposure is related to the development of materialism, obesogenic eating behavior, and increased parent–child conflict (Opree et al. 2014). Thus, the appropriateness of advertising aimed at young children should be questioned.

Preschoolers are considered especially vulnerable to the impact of advertising due to their limited consumer socialization skills (John 1999). Consumer socialization is defined by Ward (1974) as “the processes by which young people acquire skills, knowledge, and attitudes relevant to their functioning as consumers in the marketing place” (p. 2). Advertising literacy is an important aspect of consumer socialization and refers to all advertising-related knowledge and skills, as well as the ability to recognize and critically reflect on an advertising attempt (Hudders et al. 2017). These skills are strongly related to age, with older children (from ages six to 18) having a better recognition and understanding of advertising (John 1999; Moses and Baldwin 2005). Within academic research, the assumption arose that children under age five do not possess any advertising literacy skills, resulting in most advertising research focusing on children age six and up (e.g., for an overview of the literature published on children up to age 12, see De Jans et al. 2019b). However, neglecting preschool children in advertising research causes the research to fall behind in the current advertising landscape. We argue that advertising research should bring more focus to this understudied age group, as their advertising exposure is expected to increase in the coming years despite their susceptibility to advertising. To the best of our knowledge, no study has specifically reviewed the existing literature on advertising and young children (under age six). Following prominent theoretical frameworks on advertising knowledge and processing (e.g., Friestad and Wright 1994; John 1999) positing that infants (from birth to age two) are still at the beginning of their overall development and therefore start discussing children’s knowledge from age three, the current research focuses on preschoolers (ages three to five) and will not include infants.

The main aim of the current study is to provide a structured and in-depth analysis of the research that has been conducted on preschoolers and advertising in recent decades (1980–2021). In doing so, we aim to identify prominent research gaps and future research opportunities to form a reliable starting point for future studies on preschool children. Therefore, we carried out a systematic literature review based on a database search of the academic literature. This search led to the selection of 92 empirical articles focusing on preschoolers and advertising. The results are divided into a bibliometric analysis, a discussion along the theory, construct, characteristics, and methodology (TCCM) framework (Paul and Rosado-Serrano 2019), and a cluster profiling of main research streams. These include advertising exposure, advertising processing, the efficacy of advertising, and parental strategies. Based on the results, a future research agenda is proposed.

Methodology

We performed a domain-based, and more specifically, a framework-based, literature review. We followed the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) Statement—an evidence-based list of criteria to report in systematic reviews—to conduct our database search (Moher et al. 2009). Qualitative coding was performed on the included articles to identify prominent research clusters and group the articles. To structure our results and future research agenda, we relied on the TCCM framework. Paul and Criado (2020) developed the TCCM framework, and it entails an analysis of research along four domains: theoretical background, the main variables explored in the article, the characteristics of the study, and the main methods used. Relying on a framework such as that of the TCCM ensures a strongly structured and cohesive literature review (Paul and Rosado-Serrano 2019; Paul and Criado 2020).

Literature Search

The relevant articles were selected following the four-phase flow of information (i.e., identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion) as proposed in the PRISMA Statement (Moher et al. 2009). The academic articles included in this review were selected via the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases in July 2021 (see Supplemental Online Appendix I for a graphic representation). The use of WoS guarantees the inclusion of high-quality research, as the database includes only academic articles with a strict review process. Scopus, on the other hand, ensures a broader search as it includes more journals than does WoS (Paul and Criado 2020). A search was conducted, selecting the title and abstract using the following search string: (preschool* OR preschool* OR kindergarten) AND (advertis* OR brand* OR influencer*). We limited the search results to journal articles written in English. In addition, for WoS, the search was limited to articles published in journals indexed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Science Citation Index Expanded. A total of 116 articles were extracted via WoS, and 170 were found through Scopus. After merging the searches, 109 duplicates were removed. The abstracts (N = 177) were then screened to select those relevant to this literature review (i.e., branding and advertising tactics concerning preschoolers). A total of 99 articles were excluded for being unrelated to the topic of this review (e.g., vaccine effectiveness in preschoolers), focusing too much on a different but related topic (e.g., media education), or being written in a language other than English. Finally, if the abstract indicated that the study examined a wider age range (i.e., under age three or beyond age five), we included the article for full-text screening to see whether the authors discussed the results regarding preschoolers separately in the article. This initial screening led to including 78 articles that were eligible for full-text review. Reading of the full-text papers led to the exclusion of another 14 articles due to being opinion pieces (N = 3), having no focus on or discussion of preschoolers (N = 3), having no research focus on branding or advertising targeted at preschoolers (N = 6), or only briefly mentioning advertising as a possible context of research implications (N = 2). Some articles investigated children up to six years old. We decided to include these articles in our final sample if the children were recruited in a preschool environment, as some children might turn six years old while they are still in preschool. Thus, the final sample included 64 articles.

Next, we individually entered each of these 64 articles into Google Scholar. We then screened articles that cited the entered work to find additional articles which also focused on advertising targeting preschoolers but which were not found through the keyword search. This screening led to the inclusion of another 27 articles. In addition, we included one article which we encountered when reading the literature and which was not found through the previous searches. In total, this literature overview includes 92 articles published in 55 different journals. Supplemental Online Appendix II provides a reference list for all of the included studies.

Coding

Following this initial selection of articles, we performed qualitative coding on all of the included articles to identify research clusters. The first author of this study categorized the articles based on similar content and themes by adding codes to the articles. This initial coding was then discussed in a group with the other authors (professor and postdoctoral researchers) to compare the codes and identify prominent research clusters. This procedure led to identification of the following four research clusters: (1) advertising exposure, (2) advertising processing, (3) advertising efficacy, and (4) parental perceptions and practices. To ensure the validity and reliability of our coding, we performed a reliability analysis. To do so, the first author selected a random 10% of the included articles in this review (O’Connor and Joffe 2020). These were then coded and categorized among the initial categories by another researcher, after which Krippendorff’s alpha (Krippendorff 2018) was calculated. The coding between the two researchers was found to have perfect reliability (α = 1.0), indicating that our initial identified categories were reliable. Next, we discuss the results of our analysis in more detail.

Results

The first part of the results covers the bibliometric characteristics of the studies, including journal profiles, citations, and yearly publication trends. The second part summarizes the articles within the TCCM framework (Paul and Rosado-Serrano 2019). The third part entails a cluster profiling of the included articles, discussing key findings of the included studies. References for all studies found through the literature review can be found in Supplemental Online Appendix II.

Bibliometric Information of Included Articles

Journal Profile

Supplemental Online Appendix III lists the most relevant publication outlets of the articles included in this review. These include the journals that have published at least two articles included in this review. The articles were published in 55 different journals. Twelve of these publication outlets account for more than half (i.e., 57%) of the published articles. These journals focus mainly on health, pediatrics, and consumerism (e.g., Appetite, Young Consumers, Pediatrics), with Appetite being the most popular outlet. As the majority of the articles were published in these journals, it shows that the main concern with regard to preschoolers’ advertising exposure lies within their nutritional intake and overall well-being. Only a minority of the articles were published in journals focusing on marketing and advertising.

Citations

Supplemental Online Appendix IV shows the 10 most cited and thus most influential papers within the research field of advertising and preschoolers based on the citation count found through Google Scholar (as of July 31, 2021). The total number of citations was used as well as the average number of citations (i.e., citations per year; Kahiya 2018). Borzekowski and Robinson (2001), examining the impact of TV commercials on preschoolers’ brand preferences, is the most influential paper for both total number of citations as well as citations per year. The Fischer et al. (1991) paper on preschoolers’ brand logo recognition is the second most impactful paper in terms of the total number of citations. Robinson et al. (2007), exploring the effects of food branding on taste preferences, falls third in terms of total citations, but it surpasses Fischer et al. (1991) in terms of average citations per year. Roberto et al. (2010), examining the influence of brand characters on children’s food preferences, is the fourth most-cited paper in terms of total citations. However, looking at citations per year, we see that the paper also surpasses the second most-cited paper in terms of total citations (i.e., Fischer et al. 1991) and falls in third place.

Publishing Trends

Supplemental Online Appendix V shows the publishing trends of articles regarding preschoolers and advertising from 1980 to 2020. This figure indicates that research on this matter was very limited from the 1980s to the 2000s. However, interest in preschoolers and advertising increased starting in 2006. Interestingly, the number of published articles doubled from the period 2006–2010 to the period 2011–2015. The growing interest in this topic continues up until 2021 as the number of published articles from 2016–2021 is double that compared to the articles published from 2011–2015. The studies published during these time periods account for 75% of all the studies included in this review. This shows that the research regarding preschoolers’ advertising exposure is mainly concentrated in this most recent decade.

TCCM Framework

Theory (T)

Supplemental Online Appendix VI presents the theories explored in the included articles per research cluster. However, not all articles depart from an explicit theoretical framework. For example, papers exploring preschoolers’ advertising exposure describe only that exposure without the explicit mention of a theoretical foundation. Therefore, we included the category “no theory disclosed.” More than half of the studies (N = 54) in this review fall into this category. Thus, their research was probably not grounded in theory. In the studies that do disclose a theoretical framework, there appears to be little coherence in the theories used. This is especially the case in the research cluster “efficacy of marketing communications among preschool children,” where 13 different theoretical frameworks have been used within the various papers. In the research cluster “preschoolers’ advertising processing,” 11 different theories were discussed. More coherence was found in this cluster, as most of these theories do relate to the general topic of preschoolers’ cognitive development (John 1999; Moses and Baldwin 2005; Piaget 1971). Overall, the most prominent theoretical frameworks are Piaget’s cognitive development theory (N = 16) and John’s consumer socialization framework (N = 11). In addition, some studies make use of multiple theoretical frameworks. This is especially the case when discussing preschool children’s processing of advertising to provide a broad discussion of children’s capabilities.

Construct (C)

In this section, we explore the most common constructs and variables analyzed in the articles included in this review (see Supplemental Online Appendix VII for an overview). The research cluster “preschoolers’ advertising exposure” mainly incorporates advertising exposure to TV commercials as the main variable. Exposure was mostly measured through advertising data during child programming provided by third-party companies (e.g., Nielsen).

Some additional studies (N = 3) also explore the presence of advertising around schools (Chacon et al. 2015), in books (England et al. 2015), and in mobile applications (Meyer et al. 2019). When assessing preschoolers’ processing of advertising, the majority of the studies measured brand recall and recognition (N = 18) or advertising recognition and understanding of selling intent (N = 13). The number of studies measuring preschool children’s attitudes toward advertising is quite limited (N = 2). In addition, only some studies (N = 4) take developmental variables into account (e.g., theory of mind [ToM] executive functioning and language ability). Exploring the impact of marketing communications on preschool children mainly entails analyzing the impact of advertising exposure on food and taste preferences, showing that the main concern here lies with their eating behavior. Studies including parental perceptions and practices mainly explore parental attitudes toward advertising and their mediation of their children’s media exposure.

Characteristics (C)

Supplemental Online Appendix VIII contains an overview of the contexts explored in the different research streams, including authors, purpose of study, method used, country of study, participants, and general findings. As for the country of study, most studies were conducted in the United States (N = 51). The main purpose of the studies lies within exploring food marketing, TV commercials, and packaging as marketing communication tools. As for age groups, logically, most studies explore preschoolers. However, parents are often included in the sample to assess elements such as sociodemographic information. Also, there appear to be no coherent age boundaries when discussing preschoolers. Some studies define preschoolers as children ages three to five, while others extend this up to age seven (Heller et al. 2015; Šramová and Pavelka 2017; Zashchirinskaia 2021).

Methodology (M)

Supplemental Online Appendix IX presents the most commonly used methods per research cluster. Interviews and experimental research appear to be the most-used methods overall. However, there are major differences if we compare the different research clusters. Preschoolers’ advertising exposure is mainly explored through content analyses of TV and mobile advertising. Studies addressing preschool children’s advertising processing depend mostly on interviews (N = 19). While interviews are also used when addressing the impact of marketing communications on preschool children (N = 10), experimental research is most common within this cluster (N = 24). This finding is not surprising, as experimental research allows for causational support regarding the possible impact of advertising on preschool children. Studies on parental perceptions and practices are quite limited in this review, and surveys are most commonly used (N = 4). Studies relying on a multimethod approach are mainly present in the cluster “preschoolers’ advertising processing,” as this could allow for a broader and more complete exploration of preschool children’s skills and coping with advertising. More specifically, studies in this cluster often combined more quantitative methods, such as structured interviews or experiments, with more in-depth qualitative methods, such as focus groups or observational research.

Cluster Profiling

Preschoolers’ Advertising Exposure

TV Commercials

Nine studies examine preschoolers’ exposure to TV commercials. While not all of the studies solely focused on preschoolers, they provided insights into the number of advertisements and/or nutritional content of food commercials preschoolers encountered daily. Six of the studies made use of the same type of data collected in the United States that the Nielsen Company provided for different time frames. Despite using the same data type, comparisons are difficult as the data were not used consistently. As such, no coherent conclusions can be made on the evolution of advertising exposure over time (i.e., some make a distinction based on ethnicity or focus solely on ads targeted at children). Even so, all studies suggest that preschoolers encounter TV commercials daily, mostly for food products.

Other Media Outlets

Preschool children also encounter advertising via other media as children spend time online playing games on tablets and watching YouTube videos (Ofcom 2021). Online platforms supplying games or videos appear to be free to use; however, the companies behind them obtain their revenues via advertisements (Yang et al. 2017). Only one study in our review explored the online advertising exposure of preschoolers. Meyer et al. (2019) aimed at describing the advertising content in apps played by one- to five-year-old children. Of the 135 apps reviewed, 95% contained at least one advertisement. In addition, advertisements targeted at preschool children have also been seen in children’s books (England et al. 2015) and near schools (Chacon et al. 2015). As only three studies bring attention to children’s ad exposure on other platforms, some contemporary advertising outlets (i.e., YouTube) have, to our knowledge, not yet been included in the research on preschoolers’ advertising exposure.

Preschoolers’ Advertising Processing

Research in this cluster examines the skills and knowledge that preschoolers have concerning advertising without linking them to behavioral outcomes such as purchasing behavior. Similar to the previous research cluster, the focus lies within traditional advertising formats (i.e., TV commercials and product packaging). The research area of preschoolers’ advertising processing can be divided into three subcategories. The first addresses preschoolers’ knowledge and recognition of branding. The second examines the impact of message arguments and peripheral cues on children’s processing of advertising. The last category takes on a more theoretical approach and discusses advertising literacy.

Preschool Children’s Brand Awareness

Most studies within this cluster examined preschoolers’ ability to recognize brand logos and names. Several studies have shown that preschool children can recognize brand logos for a variety of brands, including child-directed brands, unhealthy food brands, and tobacco brands (Borzekowski and Cohen 2013; Fischer et al. 1991; McAlister and Cornwell 2010; Tatlow-Golden et al. 2014). Recognition of brands was consistently shown to be better than brand recall (Arnas, Tas, and Ogul 2016; Harrison et al. 2017; Kinsky and Bichard 2011; Valkenburg and Buijzen 2005). Brand recall can, however, be improved when (a limited number of) visual cues that are generally associated with certain brand names (e.g., cereal brand Honeys, associated picture: jar and bees, associated color: yellow) are used as retrieval cues (Macklin 1996). In addition, Arnas et al. (2016) showed that preschool children are better at remembering products associated with brand elements (e.g., brand character, logos, and packaging) than with brand names. Age, television exposure, (audio)visual presentation, and body mass index (BMI) were shown to be positively correlated with a preschooler’s ability to recognize brand names and products (Arnas, Tas, and Ogul 2016; Harrison et al. 2017; Hochdorn et al. 2017; Stoneman and Brody 1983; Valkenburg and Buijzen 2005). However, caution is needed when interpreting the correlation between BMI and brand recognition, as BMI is a multifaceted measure that is influenced by variables such as culture and parental feeding practices (Cadenas-Sanchez et al. 2016; Dev et al. 2013).

Impact of Message Arguments and Peripheral Cues in Children’s Processing of Advertising

Two studies examined whether the elaboration likelihood model (ELM; Petty and Cacioppo 1986) can be used to analyze how these young children process ads. In short, the ELM suggests that message elaboration occurs only when a person is motivated and has the ability to consider the information. When motivation or the ability to process the ad is low, persuasion will occur via superficial visual cues, such as attractive actors (Andrews and Shimp 1990). Both McAlister and Bargh (2016) and Te’Eni-Harari, Lampert, and Lehman-Wilzig (2007) showed that advertising processing in preschoolers may differ from that of adults as ELM principles did not necessarily apply to preschoolers. McAlister and Bargh (2016), for instance, found that—in line with the ELM—high-involvement preschoolers responded more favorably to advertisements featuring strong arguments compared to weak arguments (suggesting high message elaboration). However, high-involvement participants were also more influenced (more positive toward the advertised product) by visual cues (which would be expected when message elaboration was low). Low-involvement children showed more favorable attitudes toward the ads than high-involvement children did, regardless of the use of systematic or peripheral cues. Overall, these results led the researchers to assume that young children, in contrast to adults, do not use two different routes when dealing with a persuasive attempt.

Preschool Children’s Skills to Recognize, Understand, and Critically Process Advertising

An important facet in advertising processing is advertising literacy. Advertising literacy includes the skills to recognize advertising and understand advertising intentions in addition to the ability to control emotions aroused by the ads and reflect on the appropriateness and fairness of advertising (Hudders et al. 2017). Further, advertising literacy allows children to reflect on arguments given in an advertisement and thus consciously decide whether they want to be persuaded by the ad.

Multiple studies in our review show that preschoolers are able to recognize advertising. However, ad recognition does increase with age, with older (preschool) children showing better performance (Levin, Petros, and Petrella 1982; Preston 2016; Šramová and Pavelka 2017; Vanwesenbeeck, Hudders, and Ponnet 2020; Zumrová, Gunina, and Novák 2020).

Preschoolers were also shown to be able to understand the persuasive intent of advertising, at least to some extent (Macklin 1985, 1987; Šramová and Pavelka 2017; Vanwesenbeeck, Hudders, and Ponnet 2020). Constandinidou-Semoglou (2007), for instance, suggests that preschoolers have a fragmented understanding of advertising features such as selling intent but do not link these to other features (e.g., the advertising source). Similar to ad recognition, understanding was found to increase with age (Macklin 1987; Šramová and Pavelka 2017).

Children’s advertising literacy did not differ between traditional and digital (integrated) advertising formats (i.e., pre-roll YouTube commercials). However, caution is needed as only one study investigated this issue and both formats (TV commercial and YouTube pre-roll) clearly distinguished the advertising content from the media content (Vanwesenbeeck, Hudders, and Ponnet 2020). Developmental variables such as ToM (i.e., referring to the ability to think about others’ thoughts and feelings; Flavell 2004) could influence this. However, the results are not unequivocal. While Vanwesenbeeck et al. (2020) did not find a correlation, earlier studies did find ToM to be a significant predictor of both advertising literacy (McAlister and Cornwell 2009) and brand symbolism understanding (McAlister and Cornwell 2010). This latter skill, referring to children’s ability to “make judgments about the ways in which brands are used to symbolize user popularity and product qualities” (McAlister and Cornwell 2010, p. 211), evolves when children mature (and seems to plateau between the ages of four and five), watch more television, and have parents with a controlling communication style (Watkins et al. 2017).

Efficacy of Marketing Communications among Preschool Children

Forty-four studies discuss the impact of marketing communications on preschoolers and can be divided into two categories. The first explores the influence of branding on preschoolers’ brand preferences. The second focuses on the impact of TV commercials on their brand preference and behavioral outcomes, such as eating behavior.

Impact of Branding on Preschoolers’ Brand Preferences

The first set of studies in this group focuses on general branding and relates it to preschoolers’ food perceptions and preferences, showing how preschool children have a taste preference for branded foods (versus foods in plain packaging) (Gunnarsdottir and Thorsdottir 2010; Robinson et al. 2007). This preference for branded foods seems to increase with more media exposure, better branded food knowledge, and increasing BMI (Borzekowski and Pires 2018; Keller et al. 2012; Lourenço et al. 2019). Branding could also affect the accuracy of food perceptions as food label information and commercials for foods containing no fruit (i.e., sham fruit foods) could create the perception in preschoolers that these foods do contain fruit (Heller et al. 2015). However, not all studies provided support for the effect branding had on food perceptions and preferences, as Kellershohn, Walley, and Vriesekoop (2018) showed that healthy food items, unbranded items, and items containing a cartoon character were rated better than branded items.

The second set of studies examined the effects of the decorative and colorful nature of packaging. Packaging color is an important factor in product preference, even surpassing the influence of product familiarity (Elliott, Den Hoed, and Conlon 2013; Marshall, Stuart, and Bell 2006; Zhang 2019). As children grow older, they tend to prefer more figurative and complex designs (Zhang 2018, 2020).

A third set specifically focuses on the impact of brand characters on preschoolers’ product preferences. Studies consistently show how preschoolers prefer food packages containing a popular character (Lapierre, Vaala, and Linebarger 2011; Letona et al. 2014; Roberto et al. 2010; Ülger 2009). Product packaging, especially containing popular media characters, plays an important role in developing food preferences and influences taste preferences (Baldassarre and Campo 2015; Nelson, Duff, and Ahn 2015; Dos Santos and De Rose 2018). Marx, Hoffmann, and Musher-Eizenman (2016) further found that preschoolers used the presence of a cartoon figure on a package as a cue to categorize it as a snack (versus a meal). The influence popular characters have on children’s preferences is not limited to food, as Danovitch and Mills (2017) show that familiar brand characters can influence children into choosing a low-quality over a high-quality toy.

The influence of brand characters may not be limited to familiar characters. De Droog, Valkenburg, and Buijzen’s (2011) experiment showed that brand characters, regardless of their familiarity, can increase preschoolers’ liking and purchase requests for products. However, the congruity of the brand character with the product may play a role; de Droog, Buijzen, and Valkenburg (2012) found that a conceptually congruent (having a familiar link) but unfamiliar character was as effective as the familiar character in increasing the automatic affective response of the children. The familiar character was, however, more effective in evoking an elaborate affective response.

Only one paper in our review challenged the effectiveness of using brand characters in food marketing (Leonard, Campbell, and Manning 2019). In particular, over three experiments, it was shown that although children preferred the product with a brand character when choosing between two food options from the same category (e.g., two gummy snacks), the effect disappeared when choosing between an indulgent and healthy option. In this latter case, children tended to choose the indulgent option regardless of the packaging. In addition, the study showed that liking the food was a better predictor for food intake than brand character presence, as this latter aspect did not affect actual food intake.

The last set of studies in this research cluster focused on collectible toys (premiums) as a marketing tool. Longacre et al. (2016) showed that preschoolers’ knowledge of toy premiums increased when they frequently visited fast-food restaurants (i.e., McDonald’s). McAlister and Cornwell (2012) showed that pairing food with a collectible premium can influence preschoolers’ attitudes toward healthy and unhealthy foods and their food choices.

Impact of TV Commercials on Preschool Children’s Behavior

Most studies discussing the impact of TV commercials focus on brand and food preferences and show that preschoolers have a higher preference for advertised products (Borzekowski and Robinson 2001; Ebenegger et al. 2010; Ferguson, Contreras, and Kilburn 2014; Nicklas et al. 2011; Pine and Nash 2003). Further, studies show that exposure to TV commercials could lead to the development of materialistic values (Watkins et al. 2016); the reinforcement of stereotypical, binary gender thinking patterns (Zimmermann 2017); and the development of obesogenic eating behavior in preschoolers (Emond et al. 2016; Masterson et al. 2019). Studies relying on correlational data also suggest a positive relationship between TV ad exposure and food preferences and intake (Dalton et al. 2017; Emond et al. 2019a; Emond et al. 2019b; Longacre et al. 2017). However, a recent study (Jensen et al. 2021) challenges this correlation, as a mere decrease in ad exposure, realized by the implementation of governmental policies, did not result in a decrease in food consumption.

Finally, the impact of TV commercials on preschoolers’ behavior could be subject to context effects such as TV programming (Cho and Yoo 2014) and predisposed preferences and experiences of preschool children (Clarke 1984).

Parental Perceptions and Practices

Seven studies explored parental perceptions and practices concerning preschoolers and advertising. Three investigated the use and influence of different parental mediation styles (i.e., how parents restrict and assist their children in their media use) (Buijzen and Valkenburg 2005) on preschoolers’ advertising experience. Parents frequently mediated their preschool children’s exposure to traditional media, often opting for restrictive mediation or coviewing (Robinson et al. 2016). On the contrary, preschoolers’ exposure to online content was less supervised and happened more individually compared to traditional media content (e.g., TV). Parents considered this online content safe for their children, showing unawareness of the presence of embedded advertising (Nelson et al. 2017). Although they are often unaware of advertising, another study shows that parents were concerned with the effects of advertising on preschoolers (Watkins et al. 2016). In addition, parents worried that advertising targeting young children promotes a consumer culture, encourages consumption as a social norm, and promotes a materialistic culture (Watkins et al. 2016). Overall, restrictive mediation was effective in decreasing brand exposure and preschoolers’ purchase requests; however, active mediation was most important in reducing family conflicts (Watkins, Robertson, and Aitken 2021).

The previous section mentioned how preschoolers’ advertising exposure could lead to obesogenic eating behavior. However, Do et al. (2015) reported that parents’ advertising exposure is also positively related to their children’s BMI. This could be linked to two other studies in this review showing that parents can also be susceptible to the product packaging and advertisements targeted at children. This resulted in parents even acting against their knowledge by, for example, choosing unhealthy products for their children based on packaging and not on nutritional value (Abrams, Evans, and Duff 2015; Li, Dallas, and McBride-Henry 2016).

Finally, while investigating the transparency of sponsorships on YouTube and the role of disclosures in this matter, Evans, Hoy, and Childers (2018) showed that sponsored pre-roll advertising, in contrast to no pre-roll or nonsponsored pre-roll advertising, resulted in more positive perceptions of unboxing videos as an advertising tactic among parents. In addition, it also led to more positive attitudes toward the brand and sponsor.

Future Research Agenda

In this section we discuss the implications of the findings uncovered in our literature review for future researchers in the domain of preschoolers and advertising, structured along the TCCM framework.

Theory

The majority of the studies in our literature review (N = 54) did not explicitly disclose a theoretical framework. Among the theories that were used in the papers, John’s consumer socialization theory (1999) and Piaget’s theory of cognitive development (1971) were the most popular. However, these theories are decades old, and the results of more recent research challenge some of the foundations they describe. For example, the studies included in our search show that four-year-olds can understand the selling intent of advertising (e.g., Preston 2016), thereby challenging John’s (1999) assumption that children do not understand advertising until age seven. Piaget’s theorem has also been a matter of debate, as, for example, researchers have gone back and forth on whether it underestimates children’s cognitive abilities (Lourenço and Machado 1996; Babakr, Mohamedamin, and Kakamad 2019). Thus, although these prominent frameworks are still valuable in discussing children’s capabilities, caution is needed in fully relying on them to build research. Therefore, we recommend future research to supplement the older views with more recent theories on children’s advertising knowledge and processing. For instance, the processing of commercialized media content (PCMC) model (Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, and Owen 2010) provides valuable insights into the mechanisms of processing integrated media messages. As commercial messages have become more integrated into media content, relying on this framework might provide a strong theoretical foundation in future studies. Further, implementing recent definitions of children’s advertising literacy, such as that proposed by Hudders et al. (2017) or Rozendaal et al. (2011), might result in a broader and more up-to-date discussion of children’s advertising literacy. In addition, research has suggested that taking a general developmental approach based on age might underestimate preschool children’s advertising literacy (Lapierre 2015). Therefore, it has been argued that researchers should pay more attention to individual constructs, such as cognitive control or ToM (Moses and Baldwin 2005; Lapierre 2015). The studies in this review have already shown the scientific value of this theoretical approach (e.g., McAlister and Cornwell 2010).

Overall, theories on preschool children in the advertising domain are scarce; therefore, we recommend future researchers develop theoretical frameworks specifically applicable to and relevant for preschool children’s advertising literacy and processing. The findings of previously conducted studies listed in Supplemental Online Appendix VIII could be of great value in this regard.

Constructs and Characteristics of the Studies

This section summarizes what type of research is missing among the four research clusters and how to fill these gaps by proposing specific research questions (see Table 1 for these future research questions).

Table 1. Future research questions.

Research Cluster	Research Questions
Advertising exposure	To what type of advertisements are preschoolers exposed? To what extent are preschoolers exposed to advertising? Are there differences in advertising exposure between countries? How can advertising exposure be regulated? Are different regulations for different advertising formats needed? How do country regulations influence preschoolers’ advertising exposure? How do tech regulations influence preschoolers’ advertising exposure?
Advertising processing	To what extent are preschool children able to recognize and understand contemporary advertising formats? Does preschoolers’ advertising literacy differ for traditional versus contemporary advertising? How does advertising literacy relate to developmental variables (i.e., social and cognitive development)? How can preschoolers’ advertising literacy be improved? What effects do interventions have on preschoolers’ advertising literacy?
Advertising impact	How does the level of integration and interactivity of advertising formats impact advertising’s effectiveness? What is the impact of child-oriented versus adult-oriented ads on preschoolers? What is the impact of simultaneous advertising exposure? How does media multitasking affect advertising efficacy in preschool children? Are advertising disclosures effective in triggering preschool children’s advertising literacy? Which disclosure cues (auditory, visual, visual-auditory) are most effective? Does the effectiveness of a disclosure depend on the advertising format? Are disclosures mediating advertising effectiveness?
Parental influences	How does parents’ advertising literacy for different advertising formats relate to their children’s advertising literacy? How does parents’ advertising literacy relate to their employed parental mediation style? How does parents’ mediation style influence their children’s advertising literacy? How do different socialization agents (siblings, peers, grandparents) influence preschoolers’ advertising literacy? Can media/school interventions be useful in the empowerment of preschool children?

Future Research Related to Preschoolers’ Advertising Exposure

Recent insights into preschoolers’ advertising exposure are lacking. The studies investigating TV advertising use exposure data up to 2018. Still, television viewing remains an important leisure activity for preschoolers and should not be neglected in contemporary research. Also, given that advertising is omnipresent in digital formats, it is surprising that only one study addresses such exposure. Future research should provide a comprehensive overview of the number of advertisements that preschoolers are exposed to on different platforms. For instance, YouTube unboxing videos are often employed as an advertising technique in which brands use children as “influencers” to target a child audience (Evans, Hoy, and Childers 2018). To the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined how often preschoolers are exposed to such videos. Such insights into exposure to both traditional and digital advertisements could form a reliable starting point for further research on the impact of those encounters.

Second, as most studies on preschoolers’ advertising exposure focus on food advertisements, we recommend moving past the food category. Sponsored YouTube videos, for example, span a wide range of promoted products, from toy unboxing videos to trips to amusement parks. Therefore, exposure to these other marketing categories should not be neglected.

Finally, as advertising is subject to country and technology regulations, research assessing exposure to different advertising formats should investigate the impact of these regulations. Shedding light on this matter could be of great value in the formation of new regulations and policies in advertising targeting children.

Future Research Related to Preschoolers’ Advertising Processing

Studies in this cluster have mainly investigated the impact of traditional advertising formats (i.e., packaging and TV commercials) on preschool children’s recognition and understanding of advertising. Although this has provided some valuable insights into preschool children’s advertising literacy, information is still lacking. For instance, it is unclear to what extent preschoolers recognize and understand embedded advertising. So, we recommend that future research move past traditional advertising formats. Further, as recognition and understanding of advertising were considered dependent variables, the impact of advertising on preschoolers’ attitudes and critical reflection is understudied. Thus, a thorough examination of preschoolers’ advertising literacy according to the different dimensions (i.e., cognitive, affective, and moral; Hudders et al. 2017) is recommended.

Little attention has been given to the impact of age and development on preschoolers’ advertising literacy. Future studies could implement a longitudinal design following children throughout their preschool years to determine at what rate and according to what dimensions advertising literacy develops and how it relates to individual variables, such as ToM or executive functioning.

Finally, to our knowledge, no studies have examined whether and how preschoolers’ advertising literacy can be enhanced. Studies among adolescents have shown that interventions through serious minigames were successful at increasing their perceived dispositional advertising literacy and their critical reflection on advertising (De Jans et al. 2019a). As preschoolers’ verbal skills are still developing (Borgers, de Leeuw, and Hox 2000), nonverbal, interactive learning methods could be useful in interventions to increase their advertising literacy. Future research could, for example, develop a serious game using nonverbal and interactive gameplay, as studies in other domains (e.g., nutrition) have shown that serious games can increase preschoolers’ learning of information (Putnam et al. 2018).

Future Research Related to the Efficacy of Marketing Communications among Preschool Children

In line with previous recommendations, research related to this cluster should try to capture the impact that the current advertising landscape has on preschool children. For instance, although advertising today is highly interactive and more integrated into media content, to the best of our knowledge, no research is available on how interactivity or level of integration influences advertising effectiveness in regard to preschoolers.

Further, people often engage in media multitasking—behavior in which we combine different media activities—which can result in decreased attention to advertisements and therefore decreased brand recognition (Beuckels et al. 2021). Although presumably no data are available on this behavior in preschool children, it is highly likely that preschool children also combine multiple media activities (e.g., playing games on an iPad while the TV is on). Therefore, future studies could consider this phenomenon in the context of preschool children and what implications it has for their processing of advertising content.

In addition, more attention should be paid to the empowerment of preschool children during their advertising exposures. For example, advertising disclosures have already been fruitful in triggering older children’s advertising literacy (De Pauw, Hudders, and Cauberghe 2018).

The majority of the studies in this article measured brand and food preferences after advertising exposure. Although this might provide valuable insights into the impact of advertising, these variables are quite limited. Little actual behavior, such as purchasing behavior, has been examined. Thus, little is known about the potential long-term impact of advertising exposure in preschool children. Future studies should address this issue as it might be particularly useful for policymakers as it would indicate the extent to which preschoolers should be protected.

Finally, as most studies measured the impact of food commercials, future studies should go beyond this and measure the efficacy of different ads for different product categories (e.g., toy ads, common adult-oriented ads), as studies have indicated that preschoolers’ knowledge is not limited to child-directed food advertising (e.g., Fischer et al. 1991; McAlister and Cornwell 2010).

Future Research Related to Parental Perceptions and Practices

The last cluster regarding parental perceptions and practices measures parents’ attitudes toward advertising and the mediation of their children’s media exposure. However, most studies are very descriptive and do not entail an in-depth investigation of, for instance, the impact of parents’ unawareness of advertising exposure on their children. Future studies should focus on exploring how parents’ advertising literacy and mediation style are related to their preschool children’s advertising literacy. These studies should also include digital and integrated advertising as parents themselves might be unaware of the possible impact of such integrated formats. In addition, developing training sessions to increase parents’ (digital) advertising knowledge and mediation styles could be of great value in helping their children understand and cope with both traditional and digital advertising.

Further, little attention has been paid to the influence of other socialization agents. This is surprising, as young children learn by observing and imitating prominent figures, such as parents and other caretakers—a process defined as social learning (Bandura 1977; Ward 1974). Future research should further explore the influence of other prominent social figures, such as siblings, grandparents, teachers, and peers, on preschoolers’ advertising literacy. Studies among older children have confirmed that these individuals can influence consumer behavior, advertising literacy, and even eating habits (Cotte and Wood 2004; De Pauw, Cauberghe, and Hudders 2019; Park et al. 2018; Young, Duncanson, and Burrows 2018). These actors, as well as broader socialization influences, such as media or schools, should also be given more attention in future research.

Methods

Most studies in this literature review rely on experimental designs and interviews, especially when exploring preschoolers’ advertising literacy. These methods often require verbal skills, yet preschoolers’ verbal skills are still developing, and this may impair their ability to convey their thoughts and feelings. In addition, young children are highly suggestible and tend to agree with the interviewer (Borgers, de Leeuw, and Hox 2000). Therefore, the results can be skewed, causing either an under- or overestimation of their advertising literacy skills. Using language tailored to this age group can reduce these problems and increase young preschoolers’ resistance to suggestibility (Imhoff and Baker-Ward 1999). This may, however, be useful only when assessing the cognitive dimension of ad literacy. Measuring the attitudinal dimension may require a different approach, as preschoolers often rely on others to express and become aware of their emotions (Zarouali et al. 2019). Future research could make use of visual methods, such as emoticons, to help preschoolers express their emotions. Using emoticons in an interview setting has been shown to increase preschoolers’ engagement and enable them to express their understanding and interpretations of feelings related to everyday events, limiting the input of the adult interviewer (Fane et al. 2018).

Further, moving past traditional methods is a valuable research path. Future research could implement methods that measure implicit responses to advertisements to avoid some of the pitfalls of traditional research mentioned. For instance, the Preschool Implicit Association Test (PSIAT) was effective in measuring preschoolers’ attitudes toward different genders and common objects (Cvencek, Greenwald, and Meltzoff 2011). In addition, attention to advertisements could be measured by methods such as eye tracking, indicating what information they attend to, and how this relates to their behavior. Research with older children has already shown a possible correlation between the visual attention given to a food ad and the intake of the advertised food, thereby showing the value of this method in advertising research with children (Folkvord et al. 2015).

Implications

This literature review discusses what has been found in the research published on preschoolers and advertising and so identifies prominent research gaps. This process results in both ethical considerations of advertising aimed at preschool children and implications for policymakers on one hand and advertisers on the other.

Ethical Considerations

This literature review raises some important considerations on the ethics of advertising aimed at preschool children. Preschool children are exposed to advertisements on a regular basis through TV (e.g., Pinto et al. 2021), books (England et al. 2015), and online media use (Meyer et al. 2019) as well as near their schools (Chacon et al. 2015). Considering the limited number of studies on preschool children’s exposure to advertising on digital platforms, we can only assume that their total advertising exposure is even greater than what is currently known. This is especially concerning for three reasons.

First, multiple studies in our review show that preschool children’s skills related to advertising are limited to mere recognition and some limited understanding (e.g., Preston 2016; Šramová and Pavelka 2017; Vanwesenbeeck, Hudders, and Ponnet 2020; Zumrová, Gunina, and Novák 2020). In addition, preschoolers do not process advertising in the same way adults do. Studies show that while adults’ sensitivity to advertising is influenced by their level of involvement with the ads, preschoolers are persuaded regardless of their involvement level (McAlister and Bargh 2016; Te’Eni-Harari, Lampert, and Lehman-Wilzig 2007).

Second, and related to preschoolers’ limited processing skills, their advertising exposure mostly correlates to adverse outcomes. This includes the reinforcement of stereotypical thinking patterns (Zimmerman 2017), the development of obesogenic eating behavior (Emond et al. 2016; Masterson et al. 2019), and the development of materialistic values (Watkins et al. 2016). These outcomes could in turn lead to reduced well-being, such as lower life satisfaction (e.g., Dittmar et al. 2014; Opree, Buijzen, and Valkenburg 2012). In addition, parents of preschoolers were also found to be susceptible to advertising aimed at their children. This resulted in counterintuitive behavior, such as choosing unhealthy products for their children based on packaging although they were aware that the product was unhealthy (Abrams, Evans, and Duff 2015; Li, Dallas, and McBride-Henry 2016). Overall, these results show the vulnerability of preschool children and their parents regarding advertisements aimed at children.

Third, our future research agenda has already shown that there is a prominent gap regarding digital advertising formats in terms of both exposure and effects. However, preschool children regularly use digital media such as YouTube (Ofcom 2021). Therefore, they are likely to be exposed to marketing tactics such as influencer marketing. This marketing tactic entails advertisers employing online personalities with a large following, resulting in videos and social media posts regularly featuring paid promotions and product placements (De Veirman, Hudders, and Nelson 2019). Influencers watched by young children are often children themselves (i.e., “kidfluencers”); for example, the YouTube channel Vlad and Niki has nearly 80 million subscribers and features two brothers who are six and eight years old, respectively (Social Blade, 2022). Peers play an important role in the development of children as they often act as socialization agents through peer modeling—that is, children learn through their peers (Bandura 1977). Research has shown that children indeed bond with popular YouTube personalities and so adapt the behaviors and opinions represented in their videos (Folkvord et al. 2019; Berryman and Kavka 2017). Although this is not inherently bad, and these vlogs can be helpful in building children’s social development, it does raise concerns when these “kidfluencers” promote sponsored products—especially since this type of advertising is highly integrated into media content, therefore making it difficult to detect and critically process it, particularly for young children (Hoek et al. 2020). In addition, preschoolers’ online media use is often unsupervised by their parents, as parents consider this content safe for their children and are unaware of the presence of embedded advertising. This leads to fewer opportunities to enlighten their children on the nature of digital advertising. (Nelson et al. 2017).

Overall, if we take these notions together, one could start to question whether (digital) advertising aimed at preschool children is ethically justified. This further feeds into the discussion of the fairness of child-directed advertising as a whole (e.g., see Rowthorn 2019).

Implications for Policymakers

Our study also raises some important insights for policymakers. Two studies in our article (Carpentier et al. 2020; Jensen et al. 2021) clearly show that Chile’s regulations for child-directed marketing (i.e., restricting exposure to unhealthy food products) caused a large decrease in preschoolers’ advertising exposure to unhealthy food products. Given the negative impact greater advertising exposure may have on preschool children, this posits the question of whether specific and broader regulations of preschoolers’ advertising exposure should be implemented worldwide. These regulations should also include digital platforms (e.g., YouTube), which are currently largely spared from regulations regarding children and advertising. However, this is an evolving matter, as certain countries are starting to implement specific regulations regarding new media platforms (e.g., Iskra 2021).

Restricting advertising exposure, however, does not necessarily lead to a decline in advertising effects (e.g., food consumption) (Jensen et al. 2020). This is related to the fact that restrictive measures do not directly increase knowledge on advertising. Therefore, policymakers should consider going beyond merely restricting exposure and focus on the empowerment of children, especially considering preschoolers’ limited advertising literacy. This empowerment could be achieved in several ways.

First, education has already been shown to be fruitful in increasing older children’s advertising literacy. For example, Nelson (2016) investigated the value of implementing an advertising literacy intervention into the school curriculum of eight- and nine-year-olds. The results were promising, with significant increases in the understanding of traditional advertising formats (i.e., print campaigns) after the intervention. In addition, shorter training sessions (i.e., 10 minutes) were also found to be very effective in increasing young children’s (age seven to 11) cognitive advertising literacy for integrated advertising formats (i.e., advergames and product placement) in both the short and long term (De Jans, Hudders, and Cauberghe 2017; Hudders, Cauberghe, and Panic 2016). The value of advertising education in preschool children has, to our knowledge, not yet been addressed in academic research. However, educational programs related to nutrition, for example, have been shown to be effective in increasing preschool children’s nutrition knowledge, beliefs, and healthy eating habits (Oh et al. 2012). Overall, these studies show the value of developing education programs for young children to increase their advertising knowledge.

An alternative to school-based education could be game-based interventions. Previous research in other domains (e.g., nutrition) has shown that using nonverbal and interactive gameplay can increase preschoolers’ learning of information (Putnam et al. 2018). Policymakers should consider implementing similar methods in the marketing domain as using games or game-based interventions might help preschool children further develop their currently minimal level of advertising literacy.

Finally, the studies in our review show that parents are both unaware of digital advertising formats (Nelson et al. 2017) and susceptible to advertising targeting their preschool children (Abrams, Evans, and Duff 2015; Li, Dallas, and McBride-Henry 2016). As these are considered important factors in children’s advertising processing (Watkins et al. 2021), policymakers should also focus on informing and empowering parents about their preschoolers’ advertising reality and how they can aid their children in becoming advertising literate.

Implications for Advertisers

Aside from legislators, advertisers should consider the impact they have on preschool children by exposing them to child-directed marketing. Branding aimed at preschoolers (e.g., brand characters) plays an important role in preschoolers’ product preferences, as shown by multiple studies in our review (e.g., Baldassarre and Campo 2015; Dos-Santos and De Rose 2018; Gunnarsdottir and Thorsdottir 2010; Nelson et al. 2015). In addition, it also influences parents’ product choices for their children (Abrams et al. 2014; Li, Dallas, and McBride-Henry 2016). Therefore, advertisers should be attentive to which products they specifically target to preschool children. Further, they should become aware that child-directed marketing could result in negative opinions in both parents and the public, as these groups tend to worry about the long-term consequences and appropriateness of this type of marketing (Watkins et al. 2016). Therefore, consideration of child-directed marketing is needed. Advertisers could opt for a self-regulating initiative of the products they promote to children, such as the European Pledge, an initiative by food and beverage companies in which they commit to the promise to not promote products that do not meet common nutritional criteria to children under age 12 (EU Pledge 2022).

Conclusions

This research provides an overview of published articles on preschoolers and advertising from 1980 to 2021. Specifically, we performed a framework-based review using TCCM. In addition, we provided bibliometric information covering journal profiles, citations, and yearly publication trends of the included articles. We included a cluster profiling of the included articles, discussing the main findings of the studies. The results of the bibliometric analysis show that research on preschoolers and advertising is mainly a result of the most recent decade, with three-fourths of the studies published in the past 10 years (2011–2021). Further, most studies are published in journals focusing on health, pediatrics, and consumerism. The analysis along the TCCM framework indicates that most studies do not explicitly disclose a theoretical framework. Further, the main constructs analyzed in the studies entail an excessive focus on TV advertising in terms of exposure, impact, and processing. In addition, the majority of the studies in our review were conducted in the United States and focused on exploring food marketing, TV commercials, and packaging as marketing communication tools. Finally, the most popular research methods include content analyses, interviews, and experimental research. The last part of our literature review entails a cluster profiling. The main research clusters include preschoolers’ advertising exposure, preschoolers’ advertising processing, the efficacy of marketing communications, and parental perceptions and practices. To summarize, most past research has focused on traditional advertising forms, with an extensive focus on food-related content. Exposure to and the influence of digital, integrated advertising formats and other marketing domains (e.g., toys or leisure activities) are underexplored. In addition, little attention has been paid to the potential long-term impact of preschoolers’ advertising exposure and the impact of socialization agents.

Despite the literature review having been carefully performed, this study has some limitations. Although we based our database search on the process proposed in the PRISMA Statement (Moher et al. 2009), only two databases (Scopus and WoS) were used. Thus, it is probable that we missed relevant articles that were not present in either Scopus or WoS. In addition, some older studies might not be available online and were therefore not included in this review. Further, although we carefully decided on the keywords for the database search, there might have been a more optimal set of keywords that could result in a broader set of studies. As one of our criteria limited our search to English articles only, this might have resulted in the majority of the studies included having been performed in the United States. Therefore, there is the possibility that a wider range of articles is available written in other languages and performed in different countries.

To conclude, the research on preschoolers and advertising contains prominent gaps, as academic research has fallen behind regarding the current advertising landscape. By providing a future research agenda for academics within this research field, we aim at providing a starting point for upcoming research to fill these gaps. In doing so, future research could provide valuable insights into whether new policies and regulations regarding new advertising tactics are needed.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Ghent University Special Research Fund.

Notes on contributors

Femke Loose

Femke Loose (MSc, Ghent University) is a doctoral student, Department of Communication Sciences, Ghent University.

Liselot Hudders

Liselot Hudders (PhD, Ghent University) is an associate professor of marketing communication and consumer behavior, Department of Communication Sciences and Department of Marketing, Ghent University.

Ini Vanwesenbeeck

Ini Vanwesenbeeck (PhD, Antwerp University) is an assistant professor, Department of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University.

Steffi De Jans

Steffi De Jans (PhD, Ghent University) is a postdoctoral researcher, Department of Communication Sciences, Ghent University.